Evaluation of the effectiveness of the New Instruments of ... - CORDIS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

such large projects, size is not synonymous of higher risk or more innovative actions, etc. • The ‘’winner takes all strategy’’ which seems to have been often implemented, is criticised, in particular in areas where it is difficult to ex-ante choose the winners and where allowing for competition among different approaches might lead to better results. • The New Instruments are not always the best solution. All depends on the aims pursued (e.g. competitiveness, structuring…) Structuring is not always the main goal that should be pursued. A large scale project is not always a necessity. • Coordinators with the ideal profile are extremely difficult to find. Many of the statements were linked to the need for a coordinator to combine scientific excellence (a condition to be accepted as a coordinator) with management capabilities, flexibility (lack of bureaucracy) and having the right connections. • The increased flexibility is perceived as positive. The restriction to the use of subcontracting is not understood. Sub-contracting allows involving expertise during the project which is not yet identified at the start. This is impossible with the New Instruments. • New Instruments are leading to artificially large consortia (too many participants). Necessity of continuation of traditional instruments There was a strong opinion and consensus in all three groups that the traditional instruments should be continued and for most even enhanced. This is particularly necessary not to exclude smaller teams and in order to support more innovative actions. VI. Specific questions to Networks of Excellence coordinators Some misunderstandings obviously remain regarding NoEs, such as, mainly, the financial mechanism (establishment of the grant and use of the grant), and the concept of integration. Those who have understood the concept agree this instrument is an excellent idea (but not per se suitable for industry). The main message is however that NoEs are not always the right instrument. Some prior conditions have to be met before you can start this type of integration process. 72
Annex 4 – Estimate of average contribution / year and participant – First calls of FP6 IP PTA1 PTA2 PTA3 PTA4a PTA4s PTA5 PTA6.1 PTA6.2 PTA6.3 PTA7 Total Total EU contribution proposed (000) 379200 626000 171600 124300 28970 81600 131000 155900 100070 8000 1806640 Total number of participants 907 1727 404 204 134 284 483 267 425 62 4897 average duration in years 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 average contribution/participant/year 83616 120826 84950 121863 43239 57465 54244 116779 47092 25806 73786 0 NoE PTA1 PTA2 PTA3 PTA4a PTA4s PTA5 PTA6.1 PTA6.2 PTA6.3 PTA7 0 Total EU contribution proposed 123800 190000 92400 7500 6000 86400 26000 31600 39930 14000 617630 Total number of participants 551 1205 326 14 56 119 66 183 157 93 2770 average duration in years 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 average contribution/participant/year 44936 39419 56687 107143 21429 145210 78788 34536 50866 30108 44594 Comments: This estimate was done based on information provided by the European Commission on the results of the first calls. The duration of projects was not provided and has been estimated. There is no comparable estimate done for STREPs in FP6 or for FP5 as no information was available to the Panel. Comparable information for FP5 was not found, but informal and partial sources mentioned averages that are quite similar to the averages mentioned above for IPs. 73
Page 1 and 2:
Report Evaluation of the effectiven
Page 3 and 4:
1. Executive Summary An independent
Page 5 and 6:
2. Introduction The European Resear
Page 7 and 8:
The members of the Panel 1. Ramon M
Page 9 and 10:
The New instruments in the first ca
Page 11 and 12:
• The mismatch between the expect
Page 13 and 14:
Integrated Projects and STREPs are
Page 15 and 16:
3.4. Ensuring participation of all
Page 17 and 18:
Dissatisfaction with the feedback o
Page 19 and 20:
Another novelty introduced in FP 6
Page 21 and 22: 4.1. Portfolio of Instruments Recom
Page 23 and 24: Integrated Projects Integrated Proj
Page 25 and 26: Recommendation 9 For FP7 a much mor
Page 27 and 28: First step • Proposals are short
Page 29 and 30: The existing Financial Regulation s
Page 31 and 32: 1. Overall situation of FP6 (first
Page 33 and 34: 2. Situation of new instruments in
Page 35 and 36: Thematic Priority Area 3 Nanotechno
Page 37 and 38: Thematic Priority Area 4.2 Space Ch
Page 39 and 40: Thematic Priority Area 6.1 Sustaina
Page 41 and 42: Thematic Priority Area 6.3 Global c
Page 43 and 44: 3. Comparison between priorities Sh
Page 45 and 46: Participants from Candidate Countri
Page 47 and 48: Annex 2 Survey among Project Partic
Page 49 and 50: Introduction This report analyses t
Page 51 and 52: Table 1.2: Type of applicant by the
Page 53 and 54: Chart 1.6 : Type of organisation (n
Page 55 and 56: Priorities where the group of respo
Page 57 and 58: Respondents, due to their profile,
Page 59 and 60: the proposal, which is generally co
Page 61 and 62: These results confirm that projects
Page 63 and 64: Chart 3.9: Expectation for the futu
Page 65 and 66: Following elements notably are crit
Page 67 and 68: 6. Comparison with FP5 and traditio
Page 69 and 70: Annex 3 High level Panel of experts
Page 71: • Frustration at the concept of h
show all

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the New Instruments of ... - CORDIS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?